Re: The Daily Stormer’s Meltdown - Occidental Dissent

I used to like the Daily Stormer and would read it every day. Andrew Anglin is obviously a very intelligent man who has deep insight into a lot of things. I have to say that I have learned a lot from reading his articles, particularly his articles about women. Let me give a couple of examples. Many here will disagree, but here are a couple of insightful things that he has said. I am paraphrasing, but it captures the spirit of it: Moral convictions are a male thing. Women don't have moral convictions, so it is useless to try to convince them of anything. Women merely repeat the moral convictions of the men who protect them. The second is a corollary of this: It is not necessary to recruit any women into the movement; it is only necessary to recruit men, because men's wives and girlfriends, if properly treated, will support the principles of their men.

Reading that was a revelation to me. None of the above is in any way anti-women; it is merely a recognition of the difference between male and female nature.

That said, I rarely read Daily Stormer any more, and I can't stand Andrew Anglin. He still occasionally writes a good article, but he has been going off the deep end so much that his website has become an embarrassment. But that doesn't change the things that I have learned from him.

The only truth about this is that most Americans, men and women, are terribly ignorant and lacking in solid political philosophy. This is our national culture, and the basic tenant of our mass media corporations. As for morality, it stems from mostly from environmental factors. In my experience, people rarely come to beliefs on their own, and it is only a small number who will research beyond their own perspective. Men may be more influenced by experience, and women by people, but ultimately both groups have moral agency. If you think women don’t than you should look at the average, normie men you meet, and ask if they are better.

I'm not saying it's impossible for a woman to have a moral conviction on her own, just that it's not common. To make an analogy, if a woman asks her husband whether he likes the curtains she just bought, he will probably just say, "Yes, dear, the curtains are fine." He's not expressing his own esthetic opinion of the curtains; he's simply repeating his wife's opinion. Most men couldn't care less about curtains, so they don't form their own opinions about them; they simply repeat their wives' opinions. It's not impossible for a man to have a true esthetic judgement about curtains; it's just not likely or common. A woman, of course, may also be repeating the esthetic judgement of someone else, but she is more likely to have her own esthetic judgement of curtains than a man is.

Likewise, when a woman expresses a moral conviction, she is most likely simply repeating the moral convictions of the man or men who take care of her, because most women are not interested in coming up with their own moral opinions. It is not impossible for a woman to have a true moral conviction, but it is not common or likely. A man may also repeat the moral convictions of others, but he is more likely to have a true moral opinion than a woman.

The reason that it is important to understand this is that a man may try to convince a woman of something using logic and reasoning and be baffled when she doesn't seem to get it. In all likelihood, if she doesn't seem convinced, it is because he hasn't won her trust, and she is repeating the convictions of someone else, such as her father or her last boyfriend. In the same manner, it is usually pointless for a woman to try to convince a man that one set of curtains is better than another.